JWKilgore
-
Posts
100 -
Joined
-
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Posts posted by JWKilgore
-
-
As already stated, a long gun is more of a long-range offensive weapon while a handgun is an up-close defensive weapon.
-
-
A daily zombie soap would be absolutely amazing.
I don't know... think of the general quality (acting, writing, directing, etc.) of the typical soap. No, I'll pass on a daily zombie soap.
But I would appreciate it if they actually had full seasons instead of going in 6-show bursts followed by 6 months of waiting.
-
As a structural engineer I have all kinds of problems with the store roof collapse. First, roofs are flimsy, especially in the south with no snow and a long way from hurricane coasts. Absolutely no way one would withstand a crash from a massive helicopter with no damage visible from below. Second, as already been covered, the wandering zombies would have long since fallen through the weak spots.
Pig: Realistically, farm animals die all the time, especially without access to medicine. But since this is part of an apocalypse show I'm sure it'll be something important. Also, why wasn't the resident veterinarian, Hershal, at least looking at the sick pig?
Zombies on the fence: Why aren't dead bodies piling up outside the fence? On one of their supply runs they need to locate a tractor with a full cab and a front-end loader. Dig large pits around the jail and when the zombies bunch up outside the fence just push the crowd into a pit.
Complacency: There's no way they should be getting complacent. They keep talking about the people they're losing; Hershal's daughter doesn't even cry anymore.
Snares: With all those zombies around, how in the world are there any animals left alive outside the fence??? And the thrashing around and crying from a freshly snared animal would immediately call all zombies in the area.
-
As a kid, when I outgrew my starter guns my dad would give me a bigger one and pass on the smaller one to my younger brother. Went from a .22LR Single shot (Sears branded Savage 73, currently broken beyond repair), to a Marlin 22 semi-auto (tube mag) to a single-shot Savage .410 to a Ruger 10/44 semi-auto carbine to a Marlin 30-30.
Now the problem is, who gets the starter guns to pass on to our kids? Ultimately, I kept the Marlin 30-30 and Savage .410 while my brother kept the Marlin 22 and the sweet little 10/44.
I don't want my two boys to have that problem, so I'm starting fresh. I'm going to get each of them their own guns. Also, I want to try and avoid the "outgrow" problem. If I go with a dedicated "youth" model they will out grow them and the guns will be useless for (hopefully) decades until they have their own children.
What I'm leaning toward is a series of Savage repeating bolt actions in:
.22LR (starter gun, cheap practice, can start firing single shots but eventually use the magazine)
.223 (still semi-cheap practice ammo with longer range and louder "bangs")
7mm-08 for first "real" deer rifle
My question is, it it possible to "upgrade" a youth model with an an adult stock? Say, get a Mark II GY and upgrade with a nice aftermarket stock later (or just install a thick pad)? It would only have the 19" youth barrel, but that should still work. Or would it be better to get a nicer full-sized gun like a weather-proof Mk II FSS and temporarily equip it with a youth stock? It's only about 1/2 lb heavier, but it should last forever. Or maybe simply chop off the factory stock on the FSS and get a nice after-market stock later. The 21" barrel on the full-size may throw the balance too far off for off-hand shots with the youth stock.
Same questions for the .223 and 7mm-08... get an Axis Youth model or adult model with a temporarily shortened stock?
Does this plan make sense? Also, I'm currently planning on going with the Savage guns because 1) they'll all have the same action 2) they're reasonably good-quality guns at decent prices so I won't freak out if they get damaged. But if someone has a good suggestion that meets my requirements I'm interested in hearing them. We'll worry about things like high-end precision and higher rates of fire when they get older.
-
I'm going to mention one thing about qualifying with a "J-frame" sized revolver because that's exactly what I did. You have to shoot 6-round volleys, but a .38 Special J-Frame only holds 5 rounds. So you have to shoot 5, dump the shells and load 1, then shoot 1, dump again and reload fully to wait for the next round. You will spend far more time manipulating the gun that the other guys on the line. The same thing would affect you if you qualify with a subcompact semi-auto with less than 6 round capacity.
If I were to do it again, I would use my 22 for no other reason that the bullets are so much cheaper.
-
How about this for a hypothetical...
You are a long way from home and your TEOTWAWKI supplies when TSHTF. For some obscure reason you don't even have your every-day carry on you (just work with me here... pretend you flew to New York or Europe or something). Getting back to your armory will be a long and troublesome process.
In the process of going back home, would you rather happen upon a .22LR long gun and a decent handgun, or would you rather happen upon a more decent rifle and a .22LR handgun? I realize that both options are FAR from adequate, but again, work with me. I'm trying to come up with a reasonable scenario that follows the OP's rules. Also, assume the weapons come with adequate ammo.
To answer, my earlier answer was wrong. I was focusing on the most useful .22, but the correct issue is to focus on the most useful weapon. If you could only have one weapon (with a .22 backup), what would you want? In that case, an AR carbine with a .22 handgun
-
Mind. Blown.
A .327 Federal Magnum weapon will safely chamber and fire .327 Fed Mag, .32 H&R Mag, .32 Long, .32 Short, and .32ACP (it has just enough of a rim to catch the chamber) without any changes to the gun.
I honestly don't know if it will chamber a 7.62x38R, but if so that would be even better.[Edit: It won't, so ignore that]Yes, you can fit .32H&R Mag into a 7.62x38R chamber, but the pressures are higher in the Mag and there are reports bulging/split cases.
If a reputable manufacturer ever comes out with a .327Mag lever-action carbine I would buy one in a heartbeat. IMHO, the perfect two gun backpacking/horseback back-country survival system will be a lever carbine and a revolver, and .327Mag would be the perfect chambering. A power factor close to a .357 with higher speed, flatter trajectory, and greater range, plus lighter and smaller cartridges talking up less precious backpack space. All in a simple, rugged, and highly reliable firearm system.
Yeah, I know, the .327Mag cartridge never really took off and probably never will, but I still like it.
Back on topic...
Just to play the game by the rules of the OP, there is only one possible answer. With only 2 guns, the .22LR would have to be the long gun. The .22 "Long Rifle" cartridge was designed to be shot out of a rifle. A .22LR short gun wastes a lot of power in what is already a weak cartridge, and would only be useful for taking very small game at very short ranges. So I would have either an AR chambered in .22LR or else a 10/22. The short gun would have to make up for the shortcomings of the weak long gun, so it must be powerful enough to handle large predator animals and 2-legged aggressors. Probably a 10mm.
That being said, I agree with the other posters. Yes, a .22LR would be invaluable for quietly acquiring small game in a homestead situation. But if I were only allowed two guns neither would be a .22LR. There are way too many other options available with much greater flexibility and functionality.
-
Not sure there's a "not illegal" in all the weapons statutes, everything is an "exception" or "defense"....
As I understand it (again, I'm not a lawyer), an exception does mean not illegal. For example, -1309[e] lists several exceptions to [b] and [c]. As I read it, it is not illegal for police officers to possess a weapon with the intent to go armed on school property as long as it is in discharge of their official duties, and it is not illegal for me to possess an unloaded and legally stored firearm in my vehicle on school property (exception to [c]).
An affirmative defense means an act is still illegal and you can be arrested, charged, and tried, but you can use the affirmative defense to get the case dismissed or get a not guilty verdict. Whether you get that far or not depends on how clear and compelling your evidence is for your defense, along with possible political pressure on the prosecution. Also, with an affirmative defense the burden of proof is on the defendant. As an example, killing another human is illegal, but self defense can be argued as an affirmative defense. Zimmerman confessed to multiple crimes including discharging a weapon in city limits and homicide, but was able to use self defense as an affirmative defense to get a "not guilty" verdict.
Back to my specific case, I've done a lot of reading (helped immensely by your responses) since the time of my original post. If I have a loaded handgun in the car that is hidden from sight per -1313, then that is not illegal because -1313 says so. If my kid blabs to the wrong person and the police are waiting on me in the car line then they cannot arrest me as long as the weapon is hidden. On the other hand, if I'm stupid and leave a loaded handgun in full view on the passenger seat then -1313 does not apply and I am in direct violation of -1309[b]. If a teacher spots it and calls the police I can be arrested and tried, but I can use -1310 as an affirmative defense. I realize that in TN I would never get to trial because any decent lawyer would get the case dismissed, but many teachers are VERY anti-gun, and most people don't know about the allowances in -1309 and -1310. Many people, including many police officers, think ANY gun on school property should result in an immediate arrest. Therefore I will make d@mn sure my weapon is always out of sight.
-
1
-
-
Technically, we are both right. The cliche, "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is valid and I agree with it. If you are attacked and truly in fear of your life, then the circumstances are such that convincing everyone you were justified should be straightforward. Even if you can't convince everyone, it's better to be alive and in jail than dead.
My statement was addressed more at the mentality that it is acceptable to attack someone and shoot them when they fight back, or shoot someone in the back as they are running away with your purse or wallet, or shoot someone who is trying to break into your house but is still outside. Just because you say you were in fear of your life doesn't mean you can convince everyone else you are telling the truth.
-
From my carry class I just remember if I feel my life is threatened or my family life is, I'm justify!!!
In my carry class the instructor told us: If you feel your life or that of your family is threatened, and you think you can convince the investigating officers, the prosecutor, and possibly as many as two juries (criminal and wrongful death) that your life or that of your family was threatened, then you are justified in the use of deadly force. Or, in the case of Zimmerman, you have to convince the local prosecutor, then the state prosecutor, then a second state prosecutor, then a federal task force and then a jury you were justified; and it wont' matter because you'll be convicted by the media and live the rest of your life in fear of being shot in the back.
He also emphasized that whatever you're defending had better be worth everything you own, because that's what you could have to sell to pay for your defense.
Also, any and all things can and will be used against you, including criminal history, things people you know say about you, and forum posts talking about shooting someone. You know those "cute" signs people stick up in their foyer and share on Facebook saying things like, "I don't call 911"? Imagine a prosecutor holding up a huge 3-ft blowup of that or something similar taken from your house or Facebook timeline while trying to convince a jury of mothers and fathers that you were never in danger, that you just saw a kid you didn't know and started shooting.
-
IF they are fast they won't be Zombies. They will be rage virus monsters but not zombies!
I remember a critic of the recent Twilight vampire series sputtering, "Real vampires do not sparkle!!" She refused to answer when I asked her to describe in detail the last "real vampire" she personally saw.
As zombies are fictional characters, they can be anything the author/director wants them to be. That being said, traditional zombies have always been "undead". Some external force (either voodoo, or radiation from space, or some form of pathogen) takes over the dead victims' brains and is able to produce gross motor movement by sending electrical impulses to the muscles. This is actually theoretically plausible (electrical shocks cause muscles to contract long after death), except that with no immune system the bodies would rot and lose the ability to move within a few days. The herds of walkers on TWD would have ceased to exist long ago.
The "rage virus monster" version of the fast zombie is also theoretically plausible through the effects of a mutated/genetically engineered rabies virus. Theoretically, the virus could alter human DNA, and as the "monsters" would still be very much alive, they could continue to eat and build muscle mass until they are significantly stronger and faster than the remaining humans (see I am Legend with Will Smith... it's pretty good). Whether you call the resulting creature a "zombie" or something else is entirely up to you. I doubt it will care what you call it while it's chewing on your leg.
[Side note: I had the unfortunate pleasure of being drug to ALL the Twilight movies by my wife. She says Jacob (the werewolf) reminds her of me when I was younger; I think she just wants to watch a movie with a muscle-bound shirtless guy, because I NEVER looked like that. Personally, I think the vampires on Twilight are the unholy offspring after a one-night-stand between Dracula and Tinkerbell. I refuse to watch the DVDs with her.]
-
I know there are many people who have spent a good portion of their time and money to making "preparations". Has anyone ever thought what happens if nothing bad ever happens and all the supplies and work was for nothing? These are some of the things I ponder....
sent barefoot from the hills of TennesseeLast year a coworker was passing around a list of ammo. Four pages worth, one "type" per line. It had everything from 9mm to 12ga to .45ACP to 30-30 to .223 to .40 to .357Mag.
I bought 300 rounds of 9mm +P and +P+ Federal and Speer personal defense ammo for $90. I kicked myself for not buying more.
This is on topic because all that ammo was originally purchased by a prepper/hoarder who up and died before TEOTWAWKI happened. His widow sold an entire storage unit filled with ammo and supplies for pennies on the dollar to a friend of my co-worker, who probably made a fortune re-selling it box by box.
So yeah, if nothing bad happens, either your progeny will take the stockpile you started and continue the tradition or else they'll sell it off.
-
My problem with conceal carrying Glocks is the width. I have a single-stack Walther PPS in 9mm that is an excellent carry gun, and it also comes in .40S&W. Its operation is all but identical to your Glock (similar trigger, striker-fired, partially pre-cocked double-action only).
-
1
-
-
39-17-1310.
Affirmative defense to carrying weapons on school property.
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under § 39-17-1309(a)-(d) that the person's behavior was in strict compliance with the requirements of one (1) of the following classifications:
...(4) A person entering the property for the sole purpose of delivering or picking up passengers and who does not remove, utilize or allow to be removed or utilized any weapon from the vehicle.
Unlike other minutiae in the weapons statutes, I don't see how this one could be any plainer, and surely refutes your interpretation?
One could even argue that if you were picking up/dropping off and had a loaded heater on you without a permit, you'd not be culpable for 39-17-1309, only unlawful carry under 39-17-1307. Significant, since -1309 is a felony and -1307 a misdemeanor.
- OS
I hadn't read -1310, although looking at the title now I don't see how I missed it. I was wrong, you were right, and this is why I'm not a lawyer.
I realize there's a difference between an "affirmative defense" and "not illegal", but between -1310 and the new -1313 I'm now completely comfortable with having a loaded firearm in my vehicle while dropping off/picking up my kids. :up:
Thanks for the help!
-
39-17-1313.[a] Notwithstanding §§ 39-17-1309, 39-17-1311, or § 39-17-1359, unless expressly prohibited by federal law, the holder of a valid handgun carry permit recognized in Tennessee may transport and store a firearm or firearm ammunition in the permit holder’s privately-owned motor vehicle, as defined in § 55-1-103, while on or utilizing any public or private parking area if:
[1] The permit holder’s vehicle is parked in a location where it is permitted to be; and
[2] The firearm or ammunition being transported or stored in the vehicle:
[A] Is kept from ordinary observation if the permit holder is in the motor vehicle; or
[B] Is kept from ordinary observation and locked within the trunk, glove box, or interior of the person’s privately owned motor vehicle or a container securely affixed to such vehicle if the permit holder is not in the vehicle.Actually, this is the first time I've read the full text of SB 142 as passed. The text of the new 1313 doesn't differentiate between a loaded or unloaded weapon, says nothing about intent to go armed, and it specifically mentions that 1313 controls over 1309. I read that as of July 1 it's perfectly legal for me to have a loaded weapon in my vehicle (i.e., possession with the intent to go armed) on school property as long as I comply with all parts of 1313.
-
Carrying a loaded firearm in TN is always intent to go armed, simple as that, and TN law makes little distinction between having it on your person or within your vehicle.
...
There is an exception for picking up and dropping off passengers on school property, you may posses the firearm in whatever way you could legally possess it anywhere else.
The second sentence quoted was what I used to think. If you were legally carrying in the street two blocks from the school you were still legal in the car line. But the law specifically states that the exception you're referring to only applies to paragraph [c], which is simply possessing a firearm. As I read it, and as you explained it, a loaded firearm means you have the intent to go armed, which brings up paragraph [b]. There is no exception to paragraph [b].
Realistically, I know that the chance of being found out and arrested for something like this is slim to none. Maybe if my kids told the wrong person (perhaps an over-zealous anti-gun administrator), but they know to not talk about that. But the fact is that a violation of [b] is a Felony which would result in me instantly losing my job. I guess I'll have to evaluate the risk of this violation vs. the risk to myself and my family by not being armed.
-
I just wish someone would show Rick how to keep his wrist straight when he's pointing that Colt.
I wish they would hire a decent armorer; someone who knows something about guns. I realize that nit-picking any Hollywood production about firearm realism is a pointless activity, but the entire show is mostly centered around gunfire. They film in Georgia; hire a local.
-
If they are the "walking-dead" type of undead slow-zombies that appear to die instantly with the slightest damage to any part of the brain (and where ONLY a head-shot works), then:
1. Any reliable AR clone in 5.56 suppressed. Need something with a little power for bigger critters plus accuracy at longer ranges.
2. Browning Buckmark in .22LR, suppressed. If Darryl's weak little crossbow with practice tips can put one down, then a .22LR should have no problem.
3. Pole-arm with a blade on one end.
28-days or "I am Legend" style fast zombies, then:
1. Any reliable AR clone in .308, although looking now the SCAR-Heavy looks impressive. Or maybe a Saiga in 12 ga.
2. XD in .40
3. Machete
-
Because of restrictions where I work, and because I have kids in school and often go to Chattanooga parks (no carrying allowed), I've long gotten out of the habit of carrying. I live and work in "safe" areas and got complacent. But the other day right in my driveway my dog was attacked by a pit bull that had gotten loose in the neighborhood, and there I was with nothing to defend my dog. Luckily it turned out mostly OK (the pit's owner ran up and helped, is paying the vet bills, and is giving the pit to a friend of his who lives in the country). But still, if my gun had been on my hip at the time maybe my dog wouldn't have a shaved neck and multiple stitches right now.
So now I'm back to carrying, and keep my gun either on me or locked in my vehicle while I'm at work. I park in a non-posted public garage, so my employer has no say and the new "guns in trunks" law doesn't apply. However, school starts in 3 weeks, so I'm looking at 39-17-1309 again.
[b][1] "It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any firearm [or anything else remotely dangerous] [on school property]..."
[c][1]"It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any firearm [on school property]. It is not an offense under this subsection [c] for a nonstudent adult to possess a firearm, if the firearm is contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property."
The main differences between [b] and [c] are that there are no extra exceptions for [b] and [b] includes the phrase "with the intent to go armed". (NOTE: exceptions in [e] apply to both [b] and [c], but I meet none of those).
Paragraph [c] clearly allows me to bring an unloaded gun onto school property to pick up my son. The new "guns in trunks" law even clearly allows me to park the vehicle on school property and go inside the school, as long as the weapon is locked up before I get to the school (you aren't allowed to "handle" the gun on school property per 39-17-1309[c]).
My question is about what the phrase "with the intent to go armed" means. Obviously, by having a loaded weapon on my hip my intent is to be armed, but is that the legal definition of the phrase? Does having a loaded and easily accessible weapon make me automatically subject to [b]? Or does that phrase mean entering school property with the intent to use the weapon on school property (this is NOT the case with me)?
Assume I am on school property in the line of cars waiting to pick up / drop off my son. I am in the driver's seat, the vehicle may or may not be running, and I stay in the vehicle. Am I in violation of paragraph [b]:
- if the gun is loaded and in an IWB holster on my hip? If I opened the door and stood up I would instantly be in violation of the law, but what if I just sit there?
- if the gun is loaded and in an easily accessible "car holster"? Maybe between the seats, or under the dash.
- if the gun is loaded and in a lock box? Say, I draw it from the holster and stash it there before pulling onto school property.
I'm well aware of all the disclaimers about using legal advice from this forum and the internet in general. But if I can get the meaning of that phrase down, then I will have a better idea about how to proceed. Thank you in advance,
Jason
-
And you think teachers will be better? I'm married to a teacher and have been around them for the last 20 years. Most of them don't have it in them.
We have a resource officer here in Sullivan County that shot and killed a guy trying to enter a local HS with a gun last year. Teachers are currently working so many hours they do not have time to be trained appropriately.
I agree that most teachers "don't have it in them". But it doesn't take "most", it only takes a few trained dogs to guard a flock of sheep.
I know many of the teachers at my son's school. At least two of them (both women) posted Facebook Christmas pictures of their new weapons... one a hunting rifle and one a pretty pink handgun. I know several others who who hunt or shoot for sport. Many of them have kids in the same school. All of these normally nice women turn into mama bears when their cubs are in danger. All would WELCOME the opportunity for self-defence training (similar to what might be required for an Enhanced HCP) with the ability to have a handgun hidden in a locked box in their room.
I also agree with the statement above about accidentally hurting one or two children in the process of saving dozens. Which has a higher liability... one child getting hurt in a crossfire between a madman and an armed teacher, or 20 children getting slaughtered because the only thing the teacher could do is run or stand there and die?
-
I came here to see if this was being discussed, and I'm glad it is.
I have my TN HCP, but I rarely carry on my person. The problem is that I have two kids. I'm always going to their school/daycare, to public parks, and to other areas where carrying is illegal. My work requires that I maintain a spotless criminal record. I undergo regular background checks and drug screenings, basically every time we get a new client. I cannot risk any sort of weapons charge, so I don't carry beyond a revolver secured in my vehicle.
Personally, I'd like to see all "gun free zones" eliminated unless the administrator of that zone provides adequate supplemental security (i.e., lots of armed guards in courthouses and airports, so I'm OK with not being allowed to carry there). And private property trumps all; just like I can restrict who is allowed to carry in my living room, a business owner can restrict who is allowed to carry in a restaurant. But telling all law-abiding citizens that they can't protect themselves in a public area full of potential targets? Not a good thing.
Unfortunately, allowing anyone with a HCP to carry anywhere is not likely to happen any time soon. So now we look at this proposed law. Even if this law passes in its best form (allowing ALL teachers to voluntarily carry with additional training), it only fixes schools. What about public parks? Sporting events? Concerts in public buildings?
As mentioned earlier, Mississippi already has an optional "enhanced carry" permit. MS has generally lax carry permit requirements (fill out a form and submit fingerprints... no training), with many restrictions on where you can carry. Throw in some training similar to TN's regular HCP training and now you can carry in most normally restricted areas. You still can't carry in courts, police stations, or federally restricted areas, but other areas are allowed.
Is there any support for something similar to this in Tennessee? As a start, this would require additional class time over the basic HCP class, plus actual range/firing training with re-certification (new background checks, new training) every so many years. School systems could pay for teachers/administrators to obtain the certification, provide them a weapon and practice rounds, plus a small bump in pay to cover extra expenses. Half a dozen armed teachers would be FAR FAR cheaper and MUCH more effective than hiring a full-time security guard.
-
I used to watch it, knowing it was fake, but thought some of the weapons were interesting. I no longer watch it. My favorite was then the boss suddenly came up with the new and briliant idea to combine accuracy of an AR-15 with the reliability of an AK-47 by... wait for it... putting a piston drive on an AR-15. According to the show, no one has ever done this before, and the military was amazed by this novel idea. And then there was a weapons test and secret deal in the desert, complete with a "general" watching from a blacked-out SUV.
It's the same as "professional wrasslin' matches" in the 70's and 80's. Some people SWEAR they are real. I know many people who swear that shows like "Lizard Lick Towing" are real documentaries.
-
1
-
-
Technically, I misspoke (mis-wrote?). TN does have partial reciprocity in that they will transfer the fingerprints taken in Mississippi, so you don't have do go through that process again.
Reading the page at the link above, you still have to complete all TN requirements, even if you complete some of them in other states. A friend of mine who currently lives in Mississippi but was planning on moving to TN next year currently carries a weapon in her vehicle. This is legal in MS but not allowed in TN without a HCP. MS only requires a background check, fingerprints, and a fee for a license. TN requires that plus taking the 8-hour class and proof of lawful US residency. Our logic was that if she could get a MS permit first then later get a TN permit by direct reciprocity she could skip the 8-hour class.
But she will still have to take the class, plus pay the TN fees (in addition to the MS fees), so it will be cheaper to simply wait until she's up here before starting the process.
Rifle Series
in Long Guns
Posted
No other comments on this? No one asking why I'm not going with a .243 or recommending another brand?